The mattress innerspring was introduced into commerce around 1880. For many years thereafter, once the surface of a mattress containing an innerspring became uneven or lumpy, it would commonly be restored by someone plying the trade of innerspring mattress renovator.
In developed countries, during the 1950's and 60's, this practice of servicing and renewing mattresses fell into disuse. Mattresses and foundations joined the multitude of other used products entering the waste stream, and renovation was superseded by replacement.
At more or less the same time in the United States and elsewhere, another kind of renovation trade proliferated—the rebuilding of discarded mattresses and foundations for sale to new owners. These new owners, mainly poor or working poor or institutions serving them, could not find suitable donated used bedding and could not afford to buy new. The makers (rebuilders) of these products (rebuilts) sourced the discarded items by scavenging at the curbside, at dumps and transfer stations and, increasingly from the 1970's onward, from bedding retailers who offered pick up and removal of a customer's discarded bedding when delivering the new.
A mattress rebuilder usually removes no more than the original cover. Occasionally one of the cushioning layers inside the discarded mattress is removed as well, due to damage, excessive soiling, or contamination. In all other cases, the cushioning layers are not removed. There has been no legal, aesthetic, technical or economic imperative for removal. Moreover, the labor cost of removal and the cost of replacing the material removed are significant. The removal of cushioning layers requires a labour-intensive process of severing the two hundred or more metal staples (hog rings) that secure the edge of the inner lining of the mattress cover to the perimeter of the inner spring assembly, thus preventing the mattress cover from shifting.
As it is usually the case that there is more than one layer of cushioning remaining in the mattress being rebuilt, one or more of these layers will be invisible, and thus not capable of being accurately classified.
For consumer health protection it is necessary to inspect each layer of cushioning before assembling a rebuilt. As just noted, this procedure is not possible under the current common practice of rebuilders. The present invention facilitates such inspection greatly.
While, as outlined above, rebuilders do not completely deconstruct the mattresses they are processing for sale, they often add layers of cushioning to increase the overall thickness, and thus the market value, of the rebuilt. These added layers are of used material, usually harvested from unrebuildable discarded mattresses. They are ripped from the inner spring without taking the time to sever the hog rings, usually creating fissures in the layers and leaving behind clumps of cushioning embedded in the hog rings.
The added layers are chosen by determining their size (twin, double, queen) and thickness; the quality and content of the layers is relatively unimportant, and will vary widely from one rebuilt to the next. That is because the rebuilder's intake typically includes mattresses and foundations ranging from one year to sixty years old and older. The design, fabrication, and content of mattresses and foundations has changed frequently over the past 80 years, in response to technology, consumer taste, and the urgent search of the post-mature mattress industry for frequent, and ever more marginally necessary, style and technical changes. In consequence, very few, if any of the mattresses processed by a typical rebuilder during a given day or week are likely to resemble one another in any way, except in their (new) covering material, their style of quilting and overall finish.
The process of rebuilding is to be distinguished in this regard from manufacturing a mattress with entirely new cushioning and covering materials. In the latter case, a finite number of standardized products are created, each with detailed specifications for all of its cushioning materials, as well as its cover. Then a standard method of assembly packaging and quality assurance is specified.
It is known to manufacture mattresses ab initio in which an inner spring assembly is re-used. First, the outer ticking and cushioning material are entirely removed from the inner spring assembly of an old mattress, then, bent components on the inner spring assembly are straightened and, finally, new ticking and cushioning materials are attached to the inner spring assembly. However, there is usually a degree of metal fatigue in the inner spring assembly, leading to a reduced load bearing capacity compared with the original mattress as manufactured. Consequently, under prevailing laws, while such refurbished mattresses may be freely returned to their original owners, they cannot be sold onward to the general public, unless labeled as product containing used material.
In my U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,718, there is described and claimed a process invention, whereby the inner spring assembly of a used mattress is removed and cleaned of all ticking and cushioning material. The inner spring assembly is then subjected to a heat treating process which provides stress relief in the wire elements of the inner spring assembly. New ticking and cushioning material are attached to produce a new mattress or similar inner spring-containing product with qualities superior to the original products when they were new, warranting the marketing of a product made according to that invention as a new mattress with recycled steel content. U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,718 is incorporated herein by reference for its teaching concerning the recycling, recovery and reconditioning of inner spring assemblies taken from used mattresses or foundations.
The economic viability of mattress rebuilding is based on the established potential for reuse of the inner spring assembly together with the cushioning and covering materials. Users of mattresses discard them through a mistaken belief that the lumps and unevenness indicate collapse of the inner spring. The reality is the opposite. So strong is the inner spring that it does not collapse, even after long use. Rather, the cushioning material collapses into the inner spring. The typical discarded mattress contains an inner spring with the potential for one or more additional complete life cycles and the cushioning, while usually somewhat stressed and compressed, can generally provide moderate comfort and support for at least another life cycle.
It will be clear, however, that the current process for rebuilding mattresses described in [0004]-[0008] above does not permit standardized methods of assembly or products. In consequence, the legal and economic viability of mattress rebuilding came into serious question with the enactment, on Jul. 1 2007, of Regulation 16 CFR 1633 of the Flammable Fabrics Act [“Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets”] enforced by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. In what follows, rebuilt mattresses which comply with this Regulation are referred to as “1633-compliant”
Every 1633-compliant mattress and foundation must match a prototype designed and tested according to standards and procedures set out in the Regulation. The Regulation permits the specification and production of subordinates to the prototypes. However, as with the prototypes themselves, the subordinates must be defined as a standardized product, each component identified and described in detail. Given the great and unpredictable variation in the cushioning content of rebuilt mattresses as mentioned earlier, 1633-compliant rebuilt production would require the creation of a limitless number of prototypes. The cost of specifying and testing all of them would be prohibitive.
Moreover, under 1633, each mattress and foundation must be tracked and accounted for as part of a production lot, which in turn must be linked with the consignments of components from which the production lot was created. Tracking and accounting for rebuilts in this way would be impossible.
In addition to issues of regulatory compliance and of the deconstruction/classification process in general, it would be advisable if a preliminary sanitizing treatment process were carried out to ensure that the end components may be safely reused and recycled. An aspect of my invention (The Zysmanizing™ process) refers to treatment of a discarded unit (previously slept-on mattress or foundation) which has been discarded by the original owner.